by Gary 'Z' McGee
were born free,
they would, so
long as they remained free,
conception of good and evil."
What does it mean to
be born free?
For that matter, what
must we be free from, so that we may be free for something?
Philosophers have been
attempting to answer these questions since the dawn of human
One can argue that there
has been 'progress,' and yet we still find ourselves born
What does it mean to
be born free?
It means to be born
into a state where the tyranny of culture (whether religious or
political) does not confine or limit a person in either mind,
body, or soul.
What must we free
ourselves from, that we may be free for something?
Again, the answer is
the tyranny of culture. It's just a more proactive way of asking
the same question.
So, what is the
tyranny of culture?
The tyranny of
culture is the conditioned state, the indoctrinated state.
pre-programming and brainwashing, whether political or
It's the prison of
the status quo that most of us are unaware of.
Governing this precept,
it stands to reason that if
Spinoza's opening quote is to
become self-realized, we must,
first, admit that
we were not born free
second, find a
way to get free (from tyranny of culture)
our conception (misconception) of good and evil with
something more grounded...
Something more in
alignment with the nature of things. Something more conducive with
universal laws and the way the cosmos actually work, as opposed to
the way we've been indoctrinated to think it works.
Easier said than done, no doubt.
But becoming free was
never meant to be easy.
"The greater the
difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it."
So what is this more
grounded "something" that we should replace the concept of good and
The concept of
healthy and unhealthy on a sliding scale of moderation.
Let's break it down...
Unhealthy vs. Good & Evil
there is a share
When we peel away the layer upon layer of culture from the human
condition, we discover an extremely insecure animal wrestling with
the knowledge of its own mortality, who is forced to contemplate its
own tiny existence within an ancient and dwarfing universe.
What else is such a
creature to do but balk and then create concepts of good and
evil based upon fear of the unknown?
Well, for one, such a
creature could evolve and then create technologies that bring it
more into alignment with the unknown.
Rather than fear,
rather than balking, such a creature could realize that things
are not based upon good and evil at all, but upon healthy and
Here's the thing:
we are all going to
There's no way around
that. It's how we live our life that matters...
And in a universe that
dictates health rather than goodness, it behooves us
to come into alignment with the universe's healthy dictation. This
way, goodness is health and the very concept of goodness itself is
more conducive with the way the cosmos actually works rather than
the way our fear-filled forefathers falsely imagined it works.
Focusing on health launches us beyond good and evil. It gets us out
of our own way...
Caught up in the concept
of good and evil, we rely too much on the fallible opinion of
mankind. Whereas, coming into alignment with healthy and unhealthy,
we can rely on the infallible dictation of universal laws.
dictates that you need oxygen to survive.
If you breathe
oxygen, you are healthy and you live.
If you don't breathe
oxygen, you are unhealthy and you die...
This isn't a matter of
opinion. It's not up for debate.
It's dictated by the
cosmos that evolved us into a creature that needs oxygen to survive
and be healthy. Health then is about survival, and the healthier we
are, the better we will be at surviving.
The problem with the concept of good and evil is that it
muddies the waters of health by forcing the unnecessary middleman of
culture's opinion into the mix, and such opinions are usually
unfounded and outdated, usually having nothing to do with universal
laws or the way the universe actually works.
A priest could have
the opinion that sex is a sin (evil), but his opinion
would be unfounded since universal law dictates that sex is a
healthy function of a human animal.
Health trumps cultural
opinion, across the board.
Whether its sex
(healthy) or cigarettes (unhealthy) cultural opinion is
irrelevant under the almighty dictation of universal law.
Let's say for example,
murder (unhealthy) is evil (opinion). But even still, the two-sided
unhealthiness of murder trumps the two-faced middleman of cultural
So, you might as well
just bypass the notion of evil altogether and get to the
that someone is dead
(unhealthy) by the hand of someone else (culturally unhealthy
and threatening the survival of other people.)
The opinion that murder
is evil is irrelevant compared to the dictation that murder is
unhealthy both for the murdered person and for the other people in
the vicinity of a murderer.
One can imagine a series
of scenarios and almost always, they can be resolved by bypassing
the muddying middleman of opinionated, good/evil and
focusing instead on the dictation of healthy/unhealthy.
The Concept of
Inevitably such ponderings will lead to the concept of moderation.
This is where things get
a little more complicated. This is because moderation works on a
It's applied differently, and in varying degrees, depending upon
the particular scenario.
the moderation one
would apply to the consumption of water is considerably
different to that applied to alcohol, but both degrees of
moderation we dictation by universal law, although applied
differently to different people depending upon weight and body
The consumption of
alcohol is neither unhealthy nor evil, but it can become unhealthy
if consumed beyond the dictated scale of moderation.
Once again, the concept
of evil is an irrelevant, outdated and parochial abstraction.
The sliding scale of moderation can be applied to all things,
and when we use the concept of healthy and unhealthy
to guide us, we leave the concept of good and evil on
the parochial woodpile of outdated nonsense where it belongs.
and the concept of healthy/unhealthy is all we need to
evolve in a progressive way.
Too much of anything can be unhealthy. Even too much water can kill
you. Although it takes much more water to kill you than alcohol, you
can moderate alcohol and still remain healthy.
Unlike certain things
like crack cocaine:
the sliding scale on
this drug is so unhealthy even a "moderate" amount could kill
And even if someone's
opinion was that crack cocaine is healthy, their opinion would be
invalid according to the universal law of health and moderation,
just as the opinion of a priest who believes alcohol or coffee is
evil would be invalid according to the same law.
Validity of opinion is not based upon the tyranny of culture, no
matter how many people believe it:
it is based upon the
dictation of health, no matter how many people don't believe
Universal law cares not
about human inconvenience.
And no matter how
convenient it is to brainwash each other through the indoctrination
of outdated notions of good and evil, it will stand that the concept
of healthy and unhealthy makes notions of good and evil irrelevant.
We might as well cut out
the middleman-get rid of parochial good and evil and get better at
using updated healthy and unhealthy with the sliding scale of
moderation to determine right and wrong.
Indeed, the quicker path to Truth,
is not the
pot-hole-riddled, muddy-watered, zig-zagging path of dogmatic
good and evil which falls short of aligning itself with the
way the universe actually works (invalid), but the open-ended,
clear watered, bridge of updated consideration of healthy and
unhealthy which falls into sacred alignment with the way the
universe actually works (valid).
See also Nietzsche's
At the end of the day, the escape from good and evil is the
adoption and practice of recognizing what is healthy and
unhealthy while using moderation to navigate your way
through the uncertainty and insecurity of being a fallible and